The Issue of Limited Atonement

[civic]

to make reconciliation for the sins of the people.

Not the elect but the people


Next fallacy

 

[brightfame52]

Not the elect but the people


Next fallacy

Thats the elect.

 

[brightfame52]

Christ Death is limited to them He liveth and maketh interession for, which of course is Gods elect Rom 8:33-34

33 Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God's elect? It is God that justifieth.

34 Who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that died, yea rather, that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us.

Heb 7:25

25 Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them.

Even when they are being transgressors Isa 53:12

Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he hath poured out his soul unto death: and he was numbered with the transgressors; and he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.

This shows that unbelievers Christ died for, He intercedes even for them while in rebellion and unbelief.
The word transgressors pasha`:

to break away, trespass, apostatize, quarrel:

Word Origin: A primitive root

Corresponding Greek / Hebrew Entries: - G3876 (parabasis): Transgression

- G462 (anomia): Lawlessness, iniquity

Usage: The Hebrew verb "pasha" primarily means to rebel or transgress. It conveys the idea of a willful and deliberate act of defiance against authority, often used in the context of rebellion against God or His commandments. The term implies a conscious decision to break away from a covenant or established order, highlighting the gravity of the offense.

Strong's Hebrew: 6586. פָּשַׁע (pasha) -- To rebel, transgress

So unbelievers that Christ died for are safe in His intercession for them !

 

[brightfame52]

Christ death was limited to them the Father had given Him, and fior them only does He intercede for,

Jn 17:9,19

9 I pray for them: I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me; for they are thine.

And for their sakes I sanctify myself, that they also might be sanctified through the truth.

 

[Muckah]

Limited atonement is a doctrine in search of a text. No one can point to any text in Scripture that states clearly and unequivocally that Christ died for the sins of a limited number of people to the exclusion of others. Most Calvinists admit this. Alternatively, a dozen clear texts in the New Testament explicitly affirm Christ died for the sins of all people, and another half dozen plus that indirectly suggest it.

 

[brightfame52]

Limited atonement is a doctrine in search of a text. No one can point to any text in Scripture that states clearly and unequivocally that Christ died for the sins of a limited number of people to the exclusion of others. Most Calvinists admit this. Alternatively, a dozen clear texts in the New Testament explicitly affirm Christ died for the sins of all people, and another half dozen plus that indirectly suggest it.

If you dont believe in limited atonement, you dont believe the Gospel

 

[atpollard]

Limited atonement is a doctrine in search of a text. No one can point to any text in Scripture that states clearly and unequivocally that Christ died for the sins of a limited number of people to the exclusion of others. Most Calvinists admit this. Alternatively, a dozen clear texts in the New Testament explicitly affirm Christ died for the sins of all people, and another half dozen plus that indirectly suggest it.

Unless you embrace UNIVERSALISM (and very few do), then you must acknowledge that there exists a limitation between the blood of Christ and the forgiveness of all sin for all men without exception SOMEWHERE along the soteriological process.

LIMITED ATONEMENT simply states that the limitation is not in Jesus salvific work … Jesus blood ACTUALLY and COMPLETELY saves all for whom it was shed. (UNLIMITED ATONEMENT says that Jesus blood does not ACTUALLY and COMPLETELY save anyone, it only gains everyone without exception a CHANCE at salvation.)

 

[Dizerner]

1. Christ's Blood has no limit in power and efficacy, so this misguided attempt to not "waste" it is really quite disrespectful.

2. Everywhere in Scripture the atonement is not automatic but applied in time through the specific action of faith.

3. No clear statement exists that Christ did not die for any specific human, and a multitude exist that use encompassing terms.

 

[atpollard]

1. Christ's Blood has no limit in power and efficacy,

Absolutely no one of any position (within Christianity) denies this, so your point is a 'strawman' [refuting what nobody is claiming].
However, you do acknowledge that Christ's blood does not - in fact - save everyone resulting UNIVERSAL salvation, right?
So a LIMIT on salvation MUST exist somewhere, or everyone without exception would be destined for heaven and there would be no mention of hell.

so this misguided attempt to not "waste" it is really quite disrespectful.

... and this mischaracterization of Limited Atonement is really just a thinly veiled ad-homenim (and no way for one Christian to treat another).

2. Everywhere in Scripture the atonement is not automatic but applied in time through the specific action of faith.

TIME is not the issue, but Sola Christus is. Is salvation accomplished 100% by the work of Christ? The lack of UNIVERSALISM indicates that there IS a limitation, so it either lies in the GIVING or in the RECEIVING. If it lies in the GIVING, then Christ saves all he attempted to save and salvation is 100% Sola Christus. If it lies in the RECEIVING then salvation is CHRIST PLUS (something) and not 100% Sola Christus.

Nowhere does scripture suggest that salvation is Christ plus (something).

3. No clear statement exists that Christ did not die for any specific human,

That is an 'argument from silence". No verse says that Jesus was not married and widowed ... that does not prove that Jesus was married and widowed prior to starting his ministry.

A clear statement DOES exist that Jesus gave his life for ... "the sheep" [John 10:11] (while rejecting "the goats" [Mat 25:33, Mat 25:41]) ... and a ransom for "many" (not all) [Mark 10:45].

and a multitude exist that use encompassing terms.

Typically in the context of Jews and Greeks ("all without distinction" rather than "all without exception") ... since we know that "all without exception" will not be in heaven while heaven will have some from "every tribe and tongue and people and nation".[Rev 5:9]

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

Unless you embrace UNIVERSALISM (and very few do)

I embrace universalism, my brother.
If you are interested, I can share with you why I embrace it.

 

[Dizerner]

... and this mischaracterization of Limited Atonement is really just a thinly veiled ad-homenim (and no way for one Christian to treat another)

Calling a logically valid criticism an ad hominem is playing the victim card and thereby insulating yourself from a valid criticism.

Until you repent you will be ignored as a dishonest interlocutor.

Good day.

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

Calling a logically valid criticism an ad hominem is playing the victim card and thereby insulating yourself from a valid criticism.

Until you repent you will be ignored as a dishonest interlocutor.

Good day.

Well, in post #1008 you had called @atpollard’s attempt “disrespectful”. This was not a “logically valid criticism” but a value judgement on the way our brother was presenting his argument. I do the same type of mistake over and over when I am overwhelmed by emotions… for example, when I use the adjective “evil” to disqualiy an argument.
You should admit that, strictly speaking, arguments cannot be “disrespectful”. People are disrespectful.
By the same token, Pancho Frijoles should admit that, strictly speaking, ideas cannot be “evil”. People are evil.

I guess there is a gray zone about ad hominem arguments.

• We are doing an ad hominem when we try to disqualify the interlocutor.
• We are not doing an ad hominem when we try to disqualify the argument.
• We may / may not be doing an ad hominem when we try to disqualify the way the interlocutor presents the argument.

 

[brightfame52]

@atpollard

(UNLIMITED ATONEMENT says that Jesus blood does not ACTUALLY and COMPLETELY save anyone, it only gains everyone without exception a CHANCE at salvation.)

Yes which is a false gospel ! Its against Christ and His accomplishment, for He actually obtained salvation/redemption for all whom He died Heb 9:12

Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us. Of which is applied by Him via the Spirit.

 

[atpollard]

Calling a logically valid criticism an ad hominem is playing the victim card and thereby insulating yourself from a valid criticism.

You stated:

1. Christ's Blood has no limit in power and efficacy, so this misguided attempt to not "waste" it is really quite disrespectful.

This (your comment) was not an attack or rebuttal of any "logical argument" it was a criticism of the PEOPLE making that argument. Rather than prove the argument false, you simple accuse those that disagree with how you see scripture of being 'disrespectful'. That is the definition of ad-hominem (Latin for 'to the person'); discussing the person rather than the ideas.

Until you repent you will be ignored as a dishonest interlocutor.

That is your right, but I cannot in good conscience repent for speaking the truth as I see it. You made false accusations of 'evil motives' against everyone who disagrees with you, for disagreeing with you.

 

[praise_yeshua]

You stated:

This (your comment) was not an attack or rebuttal of any "logical argument" it was a criticism of the PEOPLE making that argument. Rather than prove the argument false, you simple accuse those that disagree with how you see scripture of being 'disrespectful'. That is the definition of ad-hominem (Latin for 'to the person'); discussing the person rather than the ideas.


That is your right, but I cannot in good conscience repent for speaking the truth as I see it. You made false accusations of 'evil motives' against everyone who disagrees with you, for disagreeing with you.

1. Why are you using the reference "Limited Atonement" instead of Particular Redemption? Do you mind being true being "Baptist" instead of this wild defense you're using?

2. Didn't Jesus become a man just like Adam? If so, then Christ's death can not possibly exclude any "man". Tell me why you insist it does?

 

[brightfame52]

@praise_yeshua

2. Didn't Jesus become a man just like Adam? If so, then Christ's death can not possibly exclude any "man". Tell me why you insist it does?

Because Jesus identified in His incarnation not with all Adams physical descendants, but particularly the seed of Abraham, to make atonement for their sins Heb 2:16-17

16 For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham.

17 Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people.

So it excluded anyone not of that particular chosen seed Isa 41 8

But thou, Israel, art my servant, Jacob whom I have chosen, the seed of Abraham my friend.

Thats why He didnt pray for the whole world of men Jn 17:9

9 I pray for them: I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me; for they are thine.
And no, the seed of Abraham of Heb 2:16 isnt the jews,its everyone Chosen in Christ, the Spiritual seed of Abraham and of Christ Gal 3:29

29 ;And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.